Comments

Stephen, I have found your three posts on the case for aid to Asia admirably clear and comprehensive. It seems to me that this second post, which enters into the increasingly busy debate about the role of development agencies in supplying international public goods, is quite different in character from the other two. I offer the following three comments on it. First, this post is presented as complementing the humanitarian case, or in fact largely superseding that case within two decades. However, I’m inclined to think that it’s not in the same line of business – that it makes a case for something that is not aid as we know it. This point almost makes itself in the post when you say that “sooner or later successful economies are graduated from aid” but then ask “is there a longer-term case for aid, one that survives the prospect of graduation?” The subsequent argument, therefore, might be better described as an argument for continuing international public financial transfers in a post-aid world (leaving aside, for now, the fact that there will always be a residual group of stubbornly unsuccessful economies) rather than an argument for aid. If we do speak of such transfers as aid, we’re using the term in a new sense. Second, the post argues that, even as Asian countries get wealthier and traditional aid is no longer warranted, countries substantially wealthier than they are should still bear a greater share of the burden of supplying international public goods. Why, exactly? If the substantially wealthier countries are, in this scenario, no longer obliged to help Asian countries achieve their domestic policy goals, why would they still obliged to help Asian countries meet their share (however measured) of the costs of supplying global or regional public goods? If the economic differential creates a moral obligation to help in this way, then one might wonder why that obligation would not extend to helping them provide ever better social security systems, safer roads, etc. Presumably the argument is not based on the moral obligation owed by the richer to the poorer, but rather on the principle of fairness in international burden sharing. That principle seems clear enough in general terms, namely that the contribution of each country should be based on the expected benefits to it of the action financed, adjusted to take account of its current capacity to pay (and perhaps also its historical responsibility for whatever international public bad might be at issue). This is where your reference to the requirement of progressivity seems relevant – the richer should be required to contribute more than is required to secure their share of the benefits, and the poorer less, with this surplus/deficit effectively defined as aid. While there’s nothing problematic about the above proposition, it only makes sense if there exist multilaterally or regionally agreed policy goals, financing targets and associated burden-sharing frameworks. However, the post proceeds on the assumption that aid, in this sense just defined, is an alternative to, rather than an ingredient of, multilateral agreement-making. You say, “International binding agreements seem to be a thing of the past. But money talks. Aid talks.” And third, a case for international public financial transfers based on equitable burden sharing in pursuit of international public goods is probably never going to be a strong case for bilateral transfers. Given the need for coordinated action across all countries with a stake in the outcome, it will generally make sense for the bulk of the resources to be concentrated in multilateral funds and institutions, who then finance action where it is most needed in an integrated way. Certainly some bilateral technical assistance will continue to be useful, but this won’t be costly and won’t really be distinguishable from technical cooperation between developed economies. Currently aid is a useful tool for international action because the funding pool is there, because it can be used for almost anything and because its use in support of international public goods is not particularly prominent. However, the presence of the funding pool is dependent on the humanitarian case. In a scenario where that case no longer applies, or only applies to a residual group of countries, the pool will shrink. Contributions toward the cost of supplying international public goods will have to be extracted painfully from consolidated revenue on a case-by-case basis, with lengthy battles about what benefits we can expect from the action financed, what is our relative capacity to pay, and what is the cheapest and most effective way of achieving the relevant goals. I don’t think there’s any escaping the pain of multilateral negotiation – which is not meant to imply any optimism about it! (A converse point here is that one might expect the humanitarian case for aid to be heavily stressed by those wanting to defer the pain for as long as possible, including finance ministries.)

That the new caps on the Seasonal Workers Scheme are so low is an absolute scandal!! If Australia is taking 37,000 or so backpackers a year to work in agriculture (most of whom are already wealthy and/or on a holiday) surely the intake from the Pacific should be higher than 2,600 a year? Underemployment in the region is such a big issue, and 2,600 people a year (for a few months at a time) is barely going to make a dent for that issue...

Signs of Change and Progress Papua New Guinea has changed, for the mere fact that PNG can put three women into the traditionally male dominated Parliament. These three women hails from the predominantly patrilineal societies (Highlands, Momase and Southern), which were the least expected regions to have women representatives in Parliament. Alas the rural electorates and provincial seats. This is CHANGE we can believe in. We've proven ourselves to the international community that Papua New Guinea can change and have changed. The first two National Directive Principles enshrined in our constitution are Integral Development and Equal Participation. That was established since 1975 before the UN created their Millennium Development Goal (MDG) that identified gender equality as a development goal. PNG recognized gender as a development issue decades ago before the international community (UN). Again, Human Capital Development, Gender, Youth and People empowerment is the first strategic development focus areas of our Vision 2050. We know where we are and where we are going. We cannot be forced or lured by some external forces to adapt their standards and values. We have our own standards and values which for centuries have bonded tribes, clans and families together. We know our development needs and goals. However how we accomplish these development goals and needs may not be consistent with the international rules and appeasing to their referees. But we know we will get there one day. We are actually "crossing the river by stepping on the stone," a famous Chinese parable. That means to take one step at a time. Another interesting point to note is that the newly established political party "Triumph Heritage and Empowerment" (THE) Party, impressively has two of its female candidates voted as MP. THE party's political platform amplified the values of equality and empowerment of individuals including gender which are also reflected in our National Directive Principles and Vision 2050. Hence Papua New Guineans may be graduating from tribal politics to party politics. People no longer voted for ethnic pride but for values and principles. This is CHANGE we can believe in.

Whether an MDG or now a SDG, what use are Goals without an agreed means to achieving them; that is, a framework for growth and development? As always Sachs sidesteps the means to development and all the inconvenient arguments over the respective roles of capital, human capital, technology, the environment for investment ... institutions, policies, and good governance. By strong implication Sachs' only means to his Goals is to spend more and more money and that has rarely worked since the Marshall Plan.

Hi Stephen, In 2005 the Australian cabinet rejected a senate committee proposal for the establishment of a pilot-scheme for Pacific islanders to undertake seasonal work in Australia. At the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders' meeting in Moresby that year John Howard announced this decision, but also announced the establishment of the APTC. As I understand it then, the APTC was announced in response to pressure for regional labour mobility. Howard argued that a better way to help Pacific states would be to ‘assist them to skill their workforces to Australian standards’ (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RB/2005-06/06rb16.htm). Clearly the point being that they might then migrate to Australia to seek employment opportunities. However, following the decision to establish the APTC, Australia and New Zealand have established labour mobility schemes for semi-skilled Pacific labour. In this context perhaps the APTC shifted focus to meeting local labour market demands in the Pacific instead, and the political impetus for a 'labour mobility objective' has declined. I think discussion/debate about the future of the APTC is very important. I'd be keen to see if any representatives from the APTC have an opinion on this?

Good reflections and forward thinking questions especially on the development advantages of social media. Just my additional thoughts. If we step back a bit, we will see that social media is just one aspect of the global mobile phone and internet revolution or more generally Information Communication Technology (ICTs) and before the custodian of development –PNG government can truly embrace benefits and concerns of social media, there has to be a high level of tolerance of these innovations within its systems and process of development and service delivery. There was certainly a development edge in PNG government opting to ICT innovations and related policies including the liberalisation of the telecommunication sector. Just how delayed and intolerable government has been to embrace these technologies (mobile phone, internet) and now features like social media for its timely and immediate development and service delivery needs can be noted as waste of development opportunity and needs to be addressed. Businesses and people/voters appear to utilise these technologies more to their advantage and as they find these technologies useful in mitigating challenges of economic geography – but the government that faces far big challenges from economic geography in its service delivery is still far from utiilising this. If government is yet to fully built these innovations into its system and structures to a adaptable, tolerable levels, for example its e-government (e-health, e-commerce etc.) systems to improve service delivery, how far is it from appreciating social media to its advantages as well as the negative effects? A perfect bad example is PNG government for the start does not even have an official website compared to some of the other tinny island states in the Pacific.

Firstly, thanks for providing some clear and detailed comments about PNG. It’s valuable information to have, not least because the future economic situation of a country is an important factor in how we allocate our aid resources. I hope we see some similar pieces focusing on the other Pacific economies in the near future. You mention tightening of the fiscal envelop due in part to lower revenue from mining and oil. How does this reconcile with the fact that 90 out of 100 top PNG private companies expect profits to increase in 2012 from 2011 figures? Especially when considering top PNG companies are directly involved, or at a minimum somehow linked, to a deteriorating export market. Is it likely there will be a lag effect? While improving the Investment Climate is important, does ADB focus on enforcement as well as enacting laws? Research shows there is a worrying gap between enacting laws and enforcing them. Finally, is training workers to move from the informal sector to the formal sector an option being pursued, particularly across business linked to mining? Moreover while improving competition and encouraging growth in the non-mining sector is ideal, higher profits and wages in the mining sector and associated industries are likely to drive skilled workers into mining related areas. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

"Big Picture Visionaries" are only useful if their theoretical constructs and lofty targets are the appropriate ones. There are strong reasons to question whether the solutions propounded by Sachs are the correct ones. In the real world, the apparently neat constructs of the Sustainable Development Goals are really not much use.

Thanks for the comment, I'm not an engineer and so cannot speak with any knowledge about OTEC, nor about its use in the countries you mention. I note that OTEC was not included in the World Bank's Technical and Economic Assessment of Off-grid, Mini-Grid, and Grid Electrification technologies (which is available at http://www.esmap.org/esmap/node/437). A general point I would make about any new or emerging technologies is that they have a very poor history in developing country contexts. The Pacific is no different. The Butoni windfarm in Fiji has been very problematic, despite wind-power being a commercialised technology in other parts of the world. Similarly, there was massive investment in solar home systems in the Pacific decades ago, and those systems typically stopped working after only a few years due to lack of maintenance and other factors. I would argue that given such experiences, Pacific island countries should only adopt technologies that have been proven and used for some years in developed countries. I also think that ideally, new and emerging technologies should be operated by companies specialising in the technologies and with the requisite experience in other parts of the world, which could sell power to the grid as IPPs.

Thank you Tavurvur and Vanessa. I agree with both your comments. In my mind there are three important areas that those in the policy arena could consider. The first is supporting government machinery in PNG to embrace social media in their engagement with civil society. This also includes supporting the traditional watchdog agencies to transform their modus operandi to use social media as a tool. One example I can think of is translating the photographic evidence on foul play in the elections from the social media arena into the legal and law enforcement arena. The second is to make funding available to the Department of Education and civil society/non government organisations to conduct training on what social media is, as well as the safe and responsible use of social media. The third involves those in the international development community considering how to use social media as a tool in their work in PNG. This is not just about civil society engagement but also about transparency and donor coordination. These are all basic principles of international development contained in many of the instruments signed by development agencies. It will also go a long way to prevent duplication of programmes. These are all major changes in the way things are done in PNG and will require some bold decisions and actions on the part of those in the policy arena. Given the poor performance on the development front in PNG I am sure there can be no harm done by thinking outside the usual boxes.

The goal of many of these island nations is not overly ambitious, you're just not giving the right technologies the credit they deserve. For some of these islands, the answer is now solar and wind, but the oceans surrounding them. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) meets their needs so many different levels. First off, it's base-load, 24/7 power production created from the temperature difference in shallow and deep water. Also the price of an OTEC system is already competitive with fossil fuels for these islands, and the price is steady, not relying on worldwide markets. Plus, every OTEC plant can also power a desalination facility, making every OTEC system a massive clean water source for these nations. It's why places like the Marshall Islands, the Bahamas, Zanzibar, and Malaysia have already started the process of pursuing OTEC for their people. With the power of the oceans, and OTEC power in particular, a 100% goal isn't far fetched, it's entirely possible, and needed for these nations to prosper in the future. See more on how OTEC works at The ON Project. http://www.theonproject.org/otec/?utm_source=devpolicy&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=mscomment

Really informative. Like reading blogs written by people who don't have pseudonyms and provide reliable non-bias (well mostly non-bias) commentaries with facts and figures which keep me informed. I look forward to reading more on the same subject and others, Michelle.